D
Dr.Bombay
Guest
You aren’t the Church, Hammy. You don’t decide who’s in communion and who isn’t.
And how do I know if there’s more modernist influence? what’s ya point?
- Status
And how do I know if there’s more modernist influence? what’s ya point?
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Seems----some in the boat—are the ones causing the most damage.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
I’m a notorious softie, ask my students and fellow teachers. And we worship the God who leaves the 99 safe in the fold and goes in search of the one sheep who has gone astray. I always try to remember that I could, at some point, be that sheep.There’s only one way to understand it. The way the Church has always understood it. Modernist gymnastics notwithstanding. And the way the Church has always understood it is the way the Church says that she *understands. *“IT” means what the Church says it means.
And contradicting long-standing infallible teaching is better than defending schismatics? **You say tomato, I say explication/explanation. **
Then you deny history. The Church has faced heresy since day one. **I don’t argue with that. Of course the Church has faced heresy (and schism, since heretics generally “schis”) since day one. Archbishop Lefebreve certainly wasn’t the first. The SSPX wouldn’t have a whiff of Jansenism about it if there hadn’t been Jansenists to give off the odor. **
And when that interpretation directly contradicts previous teaching, what then? How ya gonna dance around that one? Explain to me, please, why the new catechism goes to such tortured lengths to excuse the grave sin of masturbation? Is that further explaining an immutable truth? Or is that just modernism, an attempt to accomodate the age? **Easily explained, esp. using the example you’ve given, in fact. The Catechism doesn’t say that the act is ever other than objectively sinful (and the Church CAN’T say that). What it does, in essence, say is that mitigating factors of compulsivity and addiction (mental illnesses) MAY mitigate culpability. In the end, only God can (and will) judge that. The act is still OBJECTIVELY evil, sinful, disordered, etc. You make it sound as though the Church has said,“Well, you’re going to do it anyway, so here’s a rationale, have at it!” **
Sorry, Kirk. But the Church doesn’t see it the way you do. The Truth to be found at an SSPX chapel is nothing more than the Truth that has been handed down for 2,000 years. And you don’t have any authority to declare anyone in schism. Only the Church does and she hasn’t.** Agreed, they don’t disagree in the actual teaching. They’ve simply gone into schism. And their bishops are excommunicate (the Archbishop died that way), their priests suspended and without faculties, and those who attendtheir services warned against the grave sin of schism. All of this is confirmed by the Vicar of Christ on earth. About as “Church” as you can get, unless you’re going to go congregationalist and have us all vote on it. **
I hope when I complete my studies in Econe, you won’t throw me out the boat too, Kirk. I can’t swim.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Certainly in the West, I can’t argue that there hasn’t been a “silly season.” There has. I simply don’t believe that it’s as dire as some “traditionalists” make out. Though the loss of any soul is, of course, a tragedy.
D
Dr.Bombay
Guest
The faithful who attend Mass at an SSPX chapel are not in schism, nor has the Church ever said they are. Except for the bishop of Lincoln. And since I’m not in Lincoln, I am free to disregard his private opinion.
Otherwise, you’re talking to a schismatic. I’ve schismed before. And I’ll do it again, too. Just cause it feels so good.
How’s that for rationalizing?
Otherwise, you’re talking to a schismatic. I’ve schismed before. And I’ll do it again, too. Just cause it feels so good.
How’s that for rationalizing?
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Nonetheless, they are warned against the danger of falling into a schismatic mindset BY frequenting those services. And then, of course, there’s the bishops.The faithful who attend Mass at an SSPX chapel are not in schism, nor has the Church ever said they are. Except for the bishop of Lincoln. And since I’m not in Lincoln, I am free to disregard his private opinion.
Otherwise, you’re talking to a schismatic. I’ve schismed before. And I’ll do it again, too. Just cause it feels so good.
How’s that for rationalizing?
D
Dr.Bombay
Guest
Too bad they aren’t warned against the danger of falling into a modernist mindset by frequenting the no.
But we must choose our boogeymen carefully, must we not?
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
The validly promulgated and properly celebrated Mass of Paul VI cannot lead anyone into impiety (and a modernist mindset, I’m sure we would agree, is, at the very least, impious).
D
Dr.Bombay
Guest
The validly promulgated and properly celebrated Mass of Pius V cannot lead anyone into impiety (and a schismatic mindset, I’m sure we would agree, is, at the very least, impious).
Now that we’ve traveled that lovely circle, watcha got next?
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
“Properly” implies licitness.
S
steve_green_2
Guest
I believe the former? bishop of Honolulu told all those nutty PXers they were excommunicated ! NOT ! Overruled by Rome !The faithful who attend Mass at an SSPX chapel are not in schism, nor has the Church ever said they are. Except for the bishop of Lincoln. And since I’m not in Lincoln, I am free to disregard his private opinion.
Otherwise, you’re talking to a schismatic. I’ve schismed before. And I’ll do it again, too. Just cause it feels so good.
How’s that for rationalizing?
D
Dr.Bombay
Guest
You are parsing words and you know it.
A validly promulgated rite cannot licitly be forbidden. No less an authority than Cardinal Ratzinger acknowledged that. You might have heard of the Cardinal. He recently got a bit of a pay grade increase.
D
Dr.Bombay
Guest
Exactly. Which proves my point that the Church doesn’t quite consider the SSPX to be the boogeymen some would like to portray them as.I believe the former? bishop of Honolulu told all those nutty PXers they were excommunicated ! NOT ! Overruled by Rome !
S
steve_green_2
Guest
The PX may be getting too liberal, I’m looking to the PV now !
Let’s go burn some heretics !!
Let’s go burn some heretics !!
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Not remotely parsing.
He hasn’t said anything as pope, ie, stated that the TLM is permitted even if a bishop doesn’t want it. And if they aren’t in schism, what the point of a reconciliation, pursued by him or them, in any “talks”? Bit oxymoronic.
A validly promulgate rite HASN’T been forbidden. It simply can’t be celebrated in the Roman Catholic Church in any given diocese without the ordinary’s approval. Currently, he can have it or forbid it.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Horrible thought. If this is the mindset the TLM produces, well, I won’t be attending.Let’s go burn some heretics !!
D
Dr.Bombay
Guest
The SSPX needs certain assurances that their position won’t be compromised. Too often, they’ve seen the FSSP and ICRSS forced to accomodate the spirit of the age. They’d be fools to put themselves in a position where they’d have to accept that nonsense. That’s what the point of the talks is.
D
Dr.Bombay
Guest
Bah. What’s wrong with burning heretics? It was a perfectly legitimate practice at one time. Before we got all touchy, feely. And sissy.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Again, you say tomato, I say legitimate authority of the Church and the Council.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
It was a practice at one time. We’ve grown beyond it. I’d dismiss it as a bad joke, but then we see in our world far too many willing, in the Name of God, to do harm to others. I’ve too many protestants in my family to feel comfortable with this, even as a joke.
And if we burn the heretics, what ought we do with the schismatics?
- Status